The Committee on Ways and Means was called to order at 8:15 a.m., on Monday, April 19, 1999. Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr. presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Ms. Jan Evans, Vice Chairman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Robert Price (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Donald Gustavson, Assembly District 32, said A.B. 560 provided for the minting of Nevada silver gaming tokens. Silver was once used in the state on gaming tables and in slot machines and was very popular at the time. He would like to see a silver gaming token brought back to Nevada and encourage tourists to purchase them as souvenirs. The token would be a $25 gaming token used on tables in casinos. It would not be mandatory for the casinos to use the tokens in slot machines. He thought it would encourage gamblers to use a $25 token at casinos. The seal of the state would be on one side of the coin and to encourage participation throughout the state, there would be a contest to design the other side of the coin. The winner of the contest would receive the first coin. Up to the first 500 coins would be numbered, just as legislative coins were numbered. Similarly a drawing would be held to sell the first 500 coins. The proceeds from the sale of the tokens would return to the state. According to the Legislative Counsel Bureau, the actual cost to mint the tokens would be between $10 and $14 per coin, and would be done at the original press at the Carson City Museum. The more coins made, the more the per coin minting cost would decrease. In closing, Mr. Gustavson said he had not yet seen a bill come before the committee that would raise non-tax revenue, as A.B. 560 would.

Ms. Giunchigliani said Lines 30 through 34 on Page 2, Subsection 6, stated the money would not revert to the General Fund and should only be used to create more tokens, up to $300,000. She said that was unusual because most bills’ revenue would revert to the General Fund. She asked Mr. Gustavson how much revenue, in addition to the $300,000, he thought the tokens would generate. Mr. Gustavson replied that was obviously dependent on gaming industry participation and the number of coins sold. For example, if 10 casinos were to purchase 5,000 coins each, it would result in a $750,000 profit.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the motivation for the token was to generate revenue or to create a marketing tool. Mr. Gustavson said both were motivating factors. Tokens would be purchased by tourists and coin collectors and when the coins left the state, the revenue would be a total profit for the state. Ms. Giunchigliani said the token would effectively be currency and she thought only the Federal Government was able to create or issue currency. When she served on the Assembly Committee on Taxation in the 1991 Legislative Session, a bill had been proposed to mint silver coins and the committee had not processed it, because of the potential conflict with the Federal Government. She applauded the effort of trying to generate additional revenue, but was concerned about the bill’s legality and reiterated her concern that the revenue would not revert to the General Fund, which was not a commonly accepted practice for the committee.

Mr. Gustavson said he had the bill drafted in such a manner that the token would not be legal tender. He had conferred with the LCB, which had drafted A.B. 560 to be perfectly legal to create the tokens, which were gaming tokens and would not be legal tender. A token could not be used to purchase items, unless it was used for bartering purposes. The redemption could be done through the state. He said he would like to put a provision into the bill for the state to buy back the tokens if necessary.

Mr. Marvel said the committee had wrestled with the issue in the past as to whether tokens would be legal tender and thought there was a constitutional prohibition against that. He asked how much silver would be in the tokens. Mr. Gustavson replied there would be 1 ounce of fine silver in the tokens, which was approximately $5 worth of silver. The cost, including the price of silver, would be $10 to $14, depending on the coin.

Mr. Dini asked Mr. Gustavson if he had spoken to casino representatives about the acceptance of the tokens in dollar slot machines. If there was only a $25 machine in which the tokens could be used, there were some technical things that needed to be done for that to work. Mr. Gustavson said he had not yet talked to gaming representatives about using the tokens in machines, which he would like to see done. That was why there would be 1 ounce of fine silver in each token, but it would not be 99.9 percent pure, because if the tokens were used in machines, there would have to be another alloy in the tokens to prevent against excessive wear. The token could be designed to be used in machines, but that would be up to the gaming industry.

Mr. Beers asked Mr. Gustavson if he would propose an amendment to provide for redemption of the tokens. Mr. Gustavson replied he did not currently have an amendment drafted, be he could have one drafted, or if the bill was passed out of the committee, he could draft an amendment when the bill reached the Senate. The bill went through the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs without any problems. He noted he thought the amendment would be a good thing to put in the bill at some point before it was passed.

Chairman Arberry asked if anyone wished to speak in support of A.B. 560.

David Horton, representing the Committee to Restore the Constitution, said in response to Mr. Dini’s inquiry about the use of the tokens in slot machines, the present draft did not require their use. When he looked into a plan for a special gaming token a few sessions prior, it appeared it was a relatively simple matter. He explained slot machines were now designed to reject anything but the appropriate coin. He thought it would be a fairly simple matter for casinos to experiment with, if they wished to do so. If the casinos found there was "a better drop" from silver tokens than their own tokens, the casinos would be at liberty to do so under A.B. 560.

Mr. Horton explained A.B. 560 provided for the minting of 500 numbered tokens and additional non-numbered tokens to meet whatever demand was generated. Separate designs could repeat the process. Marketing would be similar to what was now done with legislative medallions. The tokens would help advertise the Silver State with a silver token and develop a market for Nevada silver.

Mr. Horton said, in addition, the appropriation of $70,000 would finance five such tokens if the cost went as high as $14 per token. The 1000 silver medallions struck by the Nevada Freedom Coalition in commemoration of the Tenth Amendment resolution of the Nevada legislature in 1995 cost between $7,000 and $8,000. The price of silver may have been slightly lower when those medallions were struck, but the $14,000 per token appropriation was ample. If 1000 tokens were sold from each design, the income would be $24,975 from each design, which would result in a profit of over $10,000 to the state.

Mr. Horton said if the tokens became popular in the casinos where they might increase play on slot machines that pay out in silver tokens, there would be more non-tax revenue for the state. He showed examples of similar tokens to the committee.

Chairman Arberry asked if anyone wished to speak for or against A.B. 560.

Harvey Whittemore, a partner with Lionel, Sawyer, and Collins, stated he was present to represent the Nevada Resort Association (NRA). He said he had not planned on speaking, other than in response to a few questions from the committee. First, Article I, Section X, Clause I of the United States Constitution provided that no state shall coin money. It was possible that A.B. 560, by imposing an obligation on licensees to accept the tokens at face value, violated that constitutional provision. It was difficult to answer the question with certainty, since very little case law existed regarding what constituted a usurpation of the Federal Government’s exclusive right to mint circulating coins. States did not typically try to enter the coin minting business. The reason why that was an issue was attempted to be addressed by Mr. Gustavson, with whom he had attempted to work on the bill.

Second, Mr. Whittemore explained, the way the bill was presently worded, it imposed a tax on the gaming industry, which is why he thought the committee had a two-thirds requirement on the bill. A.B. 560 provided for the minting of the $25 gaming token by the State of Nevada. The state would sell the token for $25 dollars, but was under no obligation to redeem the token. Therefore, a Nevada gaming licensee, under the bill, would be required to accept the obligation at face value. The patrons were not required to accept the tokens from the licensees as payments of gaming debt. Since the licensee would have no means of redeeming the tokens for their cash value, a licensee, in effect, paid the state $25 whenever a patron used one of the tokens.

Therefore, Mr. Whittemore concluded, the bill needed to be worked on, technically, to determine a method of redemption. Otherwise it was simply a tax, and if it was a tax, obviously the NRA would be very concerned about the bill. If the bill could establish a redemption program which would not violate the Constitution, then the only concern would be with what Mr. Dini indicated would be a concern from the licensees’ perspective, which was whether the casinos would be obligated to use the tokens in any machines. As he understood, Mr. Gustavson’s attempt was not to require that. He was viewing the tokens as a marketing tool.

Mr. Marvel asked Mr. Whittemore if he thought the bill could be fixed so the state could utilize the tokens. He thought it would be a great way to take advantage of the state’s silver production. Mr. Whittemore said he could see the merits in attempting to pursue the bill. His concern was timing, in light of the day’s legislative deadline, whether the necessary research could be done to determine whether a redemption provision would create, in effect, a circulating coin. The committee’s direction would be awaited, with respect to whether the committee wanted to proceed or not. If the matter could be resolved, obviously he would not be opposed to the bill because if it would generate dollars for the state without imposing a tax, and if it was a tourism and marketing tool that utilized the state’s natural resources, it would be something the NRA could live with. His concern was to make sure casinos would not be taxed every time a person gave a casino a $25 token, because the casino would have no means of redeeming the token.

Mr. Hettrick said if the casinos were to buy the tokens at $15 apiece and sell them for $25, the casinos would make a profit and not be taxed. As he understood, Mr. Whittemore’s concern was if a person bought the token somewhere else and redeemed it for $25, the casino would be stuck with a $25 token for which it could not get reimbursement. He thought if the bill provided a redemption formula that would allow casinos to return the tokens received as cash. Mr. Whittemore said that was the question before the legislature: whether the bill could establish a redemption feature that the state would want to engage in with the licensee. Since the purpose of the bill was to make sure the tokens could be accepted as gaming tokens, it seemed the language of the redemption portion of the bill needed to be worked on.

Lynn Chapman, representing Nevada Eagle Forum, read from Nevada Eagle Forum’s 1998 Voter Guide:

Ms. Chapman stated she was not an expert in the area, but thought
A.B. 560 was a good bill because it would raise money for the state and the people would have a beautiful silver coin in return. She said she collected silver coins and distributed some examples to the committee. She concluded by noting silver coins were affordable and made nice gifts.

Dale Erquiaga, Acting Director of the Department of Museums, Libraries, and Arts, said A.B. 560 would use the press at the old Carson City Mint, which was now the State Museum. His concern was that the press was an artifact and the volume of coins the bill predicated would ultimately damage the press. If the press broke, there was no one alive to fix it. There was only one volunteer to operate the press, and when he was gone, the machine may be inoperable. He had spoken briefly with Mr. Gustavson about having only the first numbered series of coins minted on the press. He needed to make sure the artifact was used in a very limited way, not to mint the number of coins the bill would, if Mr. Gustavson was correct, ultimately generate.

Mr. Hettrick noted coins and tokens from the United States were often worth a lot of money in other countries and thought the state would sell a lot of tokens to tourists.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 560 closed.

Dean Heller, Secretary of State, showed several minutes of a video explaining digital signatures. He explained A.B. 674 was the culmination of work from the 1997 Legislative Session. Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley’s bill from that session gave the authority to the Secretary of State’s office to produce the necessary regulations in order for digital signatures to become a reality in the State of Nevada. Approximately 50 pages of regulations had been produced by the Secretary of State’s office, the Attorney General’s office, and the Department of Information Technology. He stated he appreciated the work of all those who had participated in the process of drafting the bill.

Mr. Heller explained the regulations had been submitted to LCB legal counsel, which had informed him there were several provisions that must come before the legislature. A.B. 674 included those provisions and, in summary, did four things. First, it established the definitions of digital signature. Second, Section 16 allowed for the establishment of a fee for licensure. Third, it imposed civil penalties and fines for those who willfully violated the provisions of the bill. And fourth, it allowed the Secretary of State’s office to adopt regulations, which it had already done.

Chairman Arberry asked what type of penalty there would be for a person who violated the provisions of the bill or forged a signature. Mr. Heller replied Section 17 would impose a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for willful violation of a provision of the bill.

Vice Chair Evans asked Mr. Heller for examples of how digital signatures would be utilized. Mr. Heller replied there were several areas in the Secretary of State’s office that could use digital signatures in the near future. The process of filing a corporation with the Secretary of State’s office was currently very labor intensive and paper intensive. The office was seeking the ability to file corporations electronically. The office filed over 40,000 new corporations every year and it would be very helpful to be able to file at least a portion of those electronically. The office estimated it processed approximately 250,000 documents annually and digital signatures would help to reduce the number of paper documents by allowing for the filing of documents via the Internet. The purpose of digital signatures was to be able to match signatures on electronically filed documents. There were numerous state and local agencies besides the Secretary of State’s office that would benefit from digital signatures. He thought the courts would receive an immediate benefit as documents were passed between courts, thereby reducing paperwork as well. In Arizona, for example, one could file for a driver’s license renewal via the Internet. With the help of digital signatures, Nevadans could electronically file for wildlife tags, make tax payments, and apply for driver’s licenses and registrations.

Vice Chair Evans asked what would be the cost to implement the technology for digital signatures. Mr. Heller replied the Secretary of State’s office had been very fortunate because the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means had given it the tools to allow for the implementation and success of digital signature. As stated to the previous IFC, the Secretary of State’s office had added two or three additional positions in its data processing division. A.B. 674 would give the office the key personnel to produce the necessary software to move forward with the implementation of digital signature capability.

Mr. Heller explained the only cost was two keys. The state had a key and an individual outside the office had a key. A third party would match the two keys to authenticate signatures. The third party position, titled Certification Authority, would be licensed by the state and would pay a fee to process the keys. Therefore, there would be no cost to the office or the state.

Chair Evans asked if specialized software or modifications to existing software would be required. Mr. Heller said that question had not yet been answered. There were two ways of establishing a Certification Authority. First, as was done in Utah, the position could be "in house" with the verification process done within the state’s commerce department. Alternatively, as was done in Washington, the position could be outside of the office. The Nevada Secretary of State’s office would collect information from private vendors to determine whether the position would be outside or inside the office.

Vice Chair Evans said she assumed Mr. Heller had been communicating with states that used digital signatures. Mr. Heller stated that was correct. Vice Chair Evans asked if those states had given him any indication of the cost of conducting the verification process inside the office, versus out side the office. Mr. Heller said he had been to Utah and had seen the facility that housed its digital signature software. The facility was very high tech and in a very secured area because, obviously, the state did not want any unauthorized persons to have access to the information. If the state of Nevada wanted to engage in electronic commerce, as other states were already doing, the capability to process digital signatures was a necessary first step. Any additional costs not covered by A.B. 674 would be discussed before the committee or the IFC. It may take a while to design the necessary software, but the Secretary of State’s office already had people in place to start that process, due to the actions of the IFC.

Vice Chair Evans said she supported the technology and thought it made sense, but was curious about the cost associated with necessary personnel, software, or establishing a secure facility. She questioned whether the Secretary of State’s office, or any other agency that would use the technology, would require renovation or remodeling of office space in order to establish the high level of security, which would be essential. Mr. Heller said as soon as A.B. 674 was passed , the Secretary of State’s office would be looking for vendors to determine where the verification process would be best handled, either in or out of the office. He would inform the committee of the office’s final decision.

Mr. Heller noted a bill had been electronically signed during the 1997 Legislative Session by the Governor and the Secretary of States office. He hoped the process could be used in the future to process legislation.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 674 closed.

Mr. Dini explained he was the prime sponsor of A.B. 158 and felt it was time to review adoption issues, especially given the concerns of many of his constituents. A lot of good people who dealt with the issues of adoption and foster care were concerned about the best interests of the children they live with and love. He noted there were several people from Yerington and other areas who would testify on the bill. Mr. Dini said he thought A.B. 158 was self-explanatory and read the bill’s highlights from prepared testimony:

Mr. Dini explained the first reason A.B. 158 was before the committee was the new board the bill would establish. It was his understanding that the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) had agreed to provide the funding for the board, including per diem and travel expenses. DCFS had indicated the costs could be absorbed into its budget. The second reason was the addition of a Deputy Attorney General. There was only one Deputy Attorney General who processed all adoptions in the state. It was too large a load and work was taking too long for just one person. The Attorney General’s office had requested the additional position. He noted the bill was written in conjunction with Washoe County, DCFS, and all counties in the state.

Nancy Angres, Chief Deputy Attorney General for the Human Resources Division of the Attorney General’s Office, noted the committee should have received a letter on Friday, April 16, 1999 (Exhibit C), which explained the need for a half-time Deputy Attorney General, based on A.B. 158. In addition, the letter explained why a full-time Deputy Attorney General was needed to represent the rural area and to address the impact of A.B. 158. She said she would be happy to review the letter if the committee wished.

Ms. Angres explained the first part of the letter addressed the half-time position generated as a result of the impact of the bill, which would increase caseloads. The second part addressed why a full-time position was needed, and had been requested, but did not make it into The Executive Budget. A.B. 158 was a combination of what used to be A.B. 315, which indicated the fiscal impact was totally in The Executive Budget. However, the position requested did make it into The Executive Budget. In an effort to try to get the position into The Executive Budget, letters of support from various legislators and judges were submitted to the Budget Office, but the position still did not make it into The Executive Budget. Ms. Angres said if the committee had any questions regarding the need of the full-time position, she would be happy to answer them. The position was the number one priority for the Human Resources Division of the Attorney General’s Office.

In The Executive Budget, Ms. Angres explained, there were two other positions given to the Human Resources Division, one for Health Care Financing and Policy, and one for Child Support Enforcement. Both the positions were very much needed, but the full-time Deputy Attorney General had been her number one priority and did not make it into The Executive Budget. If it was necessary, the division would be better able to absorb the additional workload in Child Support Enforcement in the next biennium than it would be for Child and Family Services. If necessary, given the budget situation, the division would be willing to swap, so the Child Support deputy currently in the budget would be replaced with a Child and Family Services deputy instead.

Mr. Hettrick said it appeared A.B. 158 created some local advisory boards for counties with populations under 100,000. He asked if the people who served on those boards would have state immunity or state liability limits. Ms. Angres replied she believed they would. The board would be advising the Division of Child and Family Services and the Human Resources Division of the Attorney General’s Office would have to provide some representation to those panels when they met, which was another impact on the office. In response to Mr. Hettrick’s question, yes, advisory board members would be provided with immunity. Mr. Hettrick said his concern was to make sure people would want to serve on the advisory board and added he thought A.B. 158 was a good bill.

Ms. Agnes concluded by noting the full-time position would be partially federally funded. She was not sure exactly what the percentage would be, but because it concerned IV-E and IV-B funds, there would be federal funding attached to the position, and therefore, the position would not be funded with 100 percent General Fund dollars.

Chairman Arberry asked Steve Shaw, Administrator of the Department of Human Resources, Division of Child Family Services to discuss the financial impact of A.B. 158.

Mr. Shaw reiterated A.B. 158 was a combination of several assembly bills and had had a full hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The community of Yerington had been working on bills to expedite the adoption process. At the same time, he had been helping draft legislation to implement the federal Adoption and Safe Family Act passed in November 1997. A.B. 158 would implement the act in Nevada.

Mr. Shaw submitted highlights on the impact of A.B. 158 (Exhibit D). The bill radically modified how adoptions would be processed in the state. It allowed the state to act more quickly and allowed for concurrent planning of reunifying a child while the case to terminate parental rights was documented. The bill shortened present federal and state statutes. Before, there needed to be a permanent plan for a child who had been in placement for 18 of the last 36 months. A.B. 158 would require a plan if a child had been in placement for 14 of the last 20 months. The bill specified seven or eight situations where the state did not have to make reasonable efforts to reunify children with their parents. In summary, A.B. 158 would speed up, clarify, and add safety language to the adoption process.

Mr. Beers said he thought spending less time on each case would have a positive fiscal impact, spending less state resources, overall. Mr. Shaw replied that was correct, in the long run. The average length of foster care was between 31 and 36 months. DCFS wanted to shorten that substantially and increase the number of children adopted. He said A.B. 158 would provide tools to allow for that, but doubted the positive fiscal impact would take place immediately. It was Congress’ intent to have children move through the system more quickly.

Mr. Beers asked Mr. Shaw if he thought the state could save more money than would be spent on the additional Deputy Attorney General. Mr. Shaw replied ultimately, yes, if children could be moved through the system faster. He thought there would be a net savings after a few years.

Chairman Arberry asked if there would be any additional cost to DCFS if A.B. 158 passed. Mr. Shaw replied what was needed to implement the bill was in The Executive Budget.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what "ad litem" meant, legally. Ms. Angres explained it meant representing for the purposes of litigation, not permanent representation. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the 6 and 12 hour training was for the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program. Mr. Shaw replied that was correct. He noted the advisory committee was for the rural areas because advisory committees already existed in urban areas.

May Shelton, Director of Washoe County Social Services (WCSS), said WCSS had been privileged to be part of developing the draft of A.B. 158, which was introduced as A.B. 315. WCSS had also been privileged to work with the Assembly Judiciary Subcommittee, which combined the two bills. WCSS thought A.B. 158 was a very good bill. She explained the state had to adopt the Adoption and Safe Families act in order to be eligible to continue to receive federal funding.

Addressing Mr. Beers’ question, Ms. Shelton said there should ultimately be a savings to the state because children would not linger in the foster care system. However, up front, the agencies would be expected to provide services to the families and make reasonable efforts to reunite children with their families. Therefore, initially, there may not be a saving.

Susan Porter stated she was a foster parent from Yerington. She said she had been asked to testify about the history of A.B. 158. She explained A.B. 158 was a change in foster parent and adoption laws. Each item in the bill had come to her through a hard-learned lesson. Five years ago, Christopher, then 2 years old, and Michael, then 1, came into her home. The case was moving along very well until their sister was born. The sister was taken from their mother when she was 3 days old. Even though DCFS policy stated siblings would be kept together, she was placed in another home. Mrs. Porter said she had asked a social worker in Fallon why that was done and was told it was none of her business.

Mrs. Porter explained A.B. 158 addressed all the problems Christopher, Michael, and her family had been through over the previous 5 years. She had been threatened, harassed and slandered because she had persisted in trying to get the three siblings together in one house. DCFS had done nothing to encourage contact among the siblings. She had been told if she kept insisting the boys needed to be with their sister, DCFS would make sure she would never see the boys again.

After the boys were with her for 3 years, Mrs. Porter continued, DCFS began to look for the boys’ relatives. The boys were then ages 4 and 5, had become members of her family and were very disturbed by the endless parade of aunts and uncles who tried to tell the boys they would be living with them. The aunts and uncles were strangers to the boys, but it didn’t seem to matter and the boys became commodities in the eyes of the boys’ relatives and DCFS. In the end, each of the boys’ relatives were denied custody and the boys remained with the Porters. A.B. 158 stated the relative search must be completed within the first year of placement.

Mrs. Porter explained the judge had ordered the termination of the boys’ parents’ parental rights 3 years ago and the Porters were still waiting for that to happen. She had been told several reasons for that, including there was no time to complete the paperwork and it was not a top priority. She had paid $1,500 for a private attorney to handle the termination of parental rights in June 1998. After a court hearing, DCFS said the parents’ rights would be terminated, but that was almost 1 year ago and no progress had been made since then. She had wasted $1,500 and more importantly, her time, the judge’s time, and the boys’ time. A.B. 158 stated termination of parental rights would take place 6 months after it was ordered by the judge.

Mrs. Porter said the bill also established a board to oversee the movement of foster children through the system because rural area offices abused their power. The offices were governed by no one and made up their own policies and laws that changed with each situation, which was unacceptable, yet it continued. The things done to foster children in Fallon would not be done in Clark or Washoe Counties. Just because a child lived in a rural area, he or she deserved the same treatment as a child in Washoe or Clark Counties. The board would hold DCFS accountable so no child would be stuck in the system for 5 years, as Christopher and Michael had been.

Mrs. Porter stated A.B. 158 also gave badly needed structure to foster care and adoption laws and allowed social workers to have leeway in the performance of their duties. In her experiences with foster parents, Nevada’s adoption laws needed to be changed. A.B. 158 must become law because Nevada’s children and families needed it.

Peggy Pauly introduced herself as a foster parent in Yerington and said her foster daughter, Heather, had been in the system since she was 1 week old and was now 3 years and 2 months old. Her foster daughter Brianna was 48 months old and had been in the system for 33 months. She became involved with the proposed legislation in June 1998 with Mrs. Porter and
Mr. Dini. She had been a foster parent for 3½ years and cared for children in Lyon, Mineral, and Churchill Counties. None of the children who had been under her care had had an advocate to represent them in court and no one to protect their safety and best interests. The system was meant to protect children, but in many cases added to the trauma and abuse it was designed to protect them from. Caseworkers in rural counties had control over the children and there were no CASA programs. Due to their heavy workloads, caseworkers rarely visited the children and rarely contacted the people who cared for the children, yet caseworkers made the decisions as to what happened in the children’s cases.

When a termination was ordered by a judge, Mrs. Pauly continued, it could take years to complete. In Brianna’s case, the termination of parental rights was ordered in March 1998 and had still not been completed. Once DCFS received the paperwork for a TPR, the case needed to be placed on the Deputy Attorney General’s court docket, which could take 6 to 9 months. Therefore, the addition of another Deputy Attorney General was crucial.

Mrs. Pauly explained Heather had been placed with her on February 25, 1996 at 1 week old. Heather’s birth mother had been traveling on a bus to Las Vegas and was drunk. After dropping Heather three times, the driver pulled over and called the Hawthorne Sheriff’s Office. The birth mother was arrested and charged with felony child endangerment. A few hours later, Heather was placed in the Pauly’s home. Heather was stiff; her feet were black and blue from trauma; there were no clothes for her; and only an empty vodka bottle was found in her diaper bag. The birth mother was given information regarding visitation and the requirements for her to regain custody. She never contacted DCFS and never desired to see her baby again. After 8 months, the judge ordered termination of the birth mother’s parental rights. No father was involved because the birth mother did not know who fathered the child. The termination ordered in October 1996 was finally completed on December 28, 1998, 26 months after being ordered by the judge. She and her husband were now proceeding with Heather’s adoption.

Mrs. Pauly explained the processes of foster care and adoptions in rural Nevada were devastating and needed to be reformed. She reiterated A.B. 158 would mandate terminations be completed 6 months after being ordered by a judge and included funding for a new position needed in the Attorney General’s office. Heather had been with the Paulys her whole life, but most children were not so blessed. Children moved through the system and could not be settled until relinquishment by the parents or the termination of parental rights. By the time many children were free for adoption, they were labeled unadoptable due to age and/or behavior problems. By that time, children had severe problems, but if the process were shortened by the mandates in A.B. 158, many children would be less traumatized, have fewer attachment problems, and fewer disorders. A lot of the children’s problems did not come from just their abusive parents, but came from being in the system too long. The children moved from place to place and felt more and more worthless every day.

Mrs. Pauly explained she had not had a child in her home who had been in the system for less than 33 months, which was too long. She asked the committee to please pass A.B. 158 and put Nevada’s children first. She submitted a petition in support of A.B. 158 (Exhibit E).

Jeff Pauly said he was the pastor of a small Baptist church in Yerington, a part-time school bus driver, the chaplain at the Lyon County jail, and a foster parent. Since becoming foster parents, he and his wife Peggy had been through many of the trials and tribulations that other parents went through with children. In addition, they endured a system that moved children from home to home, adding the trauma of a change in family, school, and surroundings. Many children who might be adoptable were kept in the system too long and became unadoptable. Fortunately, new federal guidelines forced the system to speed up the process, but the legislation in A.B. 158 was needed to aid in cutting time children spent in the system. Caution needed to be taken because he did not want to exchange a slow, inadequate system for a speedy, inadequate system. Funding would be needed for staff to carry out the mandates of A.B. 158. He expected DCFS to make changes in the division to make the system better, especially for rural areas.

Mr. Pauly said if it was determined the state did not have the money to fund A.B. 158 and make the necessary changes, money would be spent in the future because children in the system who were moved from house to house, never having stability, would be dealt with later in a more severe atmosphere. Currently, a new juvenile detention center was being built for Lyon, Churchill, and Storey Counties. The children’s problems needed to be dealt with while they were young. He thought approximately 85 percent of incarcerated individuals were in foster care at some point. Foster homes did not cause children to be criminals, but something was being lost when children did not have stable parents and homes. Studies showed the first years of a child’s life were the most important, and too often money was spent on the back end of things. He hoped he would not see more children coming into the system, but unfortunately, he did not think that would happen. The best solution would be to get children placed permanently, as soon as possible. He recognized there were a lot bills being considered and there was a lack of revenue, but he did not think any legislation was more important than A.B. 158.

Chris Bayer, Director of CASA of Carson City, briefly outlined the role of CASA, explaining there were separate CASA organizations in Washoe, Clark, Douglas, and Carson City Counties. A CASA volunteer, which he had been for the last 5 years, was appointed by the court to advocate for the children at the time they were removed from the custody of their parents. As an organization and as volunteers, CASA sought to have children placed permanently as expeditiously as possible. CASA volunteers continued through the case, hopefully with one volunteer to each case through the course of the case, working with DCFS and the courts, providing information, and advocating for the best interest of the child. There were often cases where the point of termination was reached and children had to wait months and months to have that termination achieved by the court. For older children, that could mean the difference between the child being of an age likely for adoption or being of an unadoptable age. He was not sure whether A.B. 158 would increase or decrease the number of cases of abuse or neglect CASA would handle or the number of cases eventually processed by the Attorney General’s office.

Mr. Bayer explained A.B. 158 created language for CASA training and the responsibilities of its advocates in court. As Director of a small CASA organization, language outlining liability for CASA volunteers would be helpful and was not in the bill.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 158 closed.

Steven Horsford, representing the Andre Agassi Foundation, said A.B. 348 originally contained a fiscal note and had been amended and unanimously passed out of the Education Committee. As amended, A.B. 348 no longer had a fiscal note. It contained provisions that were passed out of the Assembly Committee on Education and provided for flexibility in work hours and work days, which were very important for the start of the Andre Agassi charter school in southern Nevada.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked for an explanation of the new language contained on Page 2, Subsection 2. She said legislation from the 1997 Legislative Session stipulated charter school contracts had to be under a negotiated agreement. The language in A.B. 348 would allow a charter school to be exempt from the provisions regarding the times of the day a teacher may work. She asked for the intent of the exemption.

Morgan Baumgartner, Corporate Counsel with R & R Advertising, explained the Andre Agassi school would serve at risk children. The intent of the bill was to give as much flexibility to the administration of the school as possible, so the school could have weekend classes, have more than the typical number of school days in a year, or have alternative school hours, if it so chose. Ms. Giunchigliani asked how it would be decided what the school chose. Ms. Baumgartner replied that was decided by the administration and was contained in the charter. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the administration decided it wanted the school to operate 7 days a week, would the faculty have any choice. Ms. Baumgartner said she doubted that would happen, but the faculty would be able to negotiate that portion with the schools administration. The faculty knew, in addition to what they would be paid through the collective bargain agreement, they would be compensated for additional hours, if there were any.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether each individual would negotiate or whether the campus would collectively negotiate. Ms. Baumgartner said she presumed the administration would establish the school’s hours so teachers would know in advance what their hours would be. However, as the school was still conceptual, there might be different tracks in the day, but she believed each contract for each teacher may address that concern.

Ms. Giunchigliani said her only concern was that she was not sure what in the collective bargaining contract made A.B. 348 necessary. She said she had argued for a long time that teachers should be negotiating flex-day schedules. Ms. Baumgartner said the intent was flexibility and allowing teachers to meet the needs of the population they served. Ms. Giunchigliani noted the collective bargaining agreement stated the number of hours to be worked, not the structure of those hours.

Mr. Horsford said it was his understanding there was limit of 180 days to the school year. Ms. Giunchigliani clarified that was from the State Board of Education, not the contract. Mr. Horsford asked if the 7½-hour day was also from the board and Mr. Giunchigliani replied that was by contract. Mr. Horsford said A.B. 348 would provide an exemption to that, should the administration decide to have classes that met outside the 7½ hours or more than 180 days per year. The site being considered by the school was adjacent to a public housing site on Martin Luther King, Jr. and Washington so flexibility was needed to provide for the unique needs of the student population. As Ms. Baumgartner indicated, the school was still in concept and the agreement that would be made would have to be approved by the local school district and would be submitted to the State Board of Education. The school was still in the application process.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she appreciated that and as a teacher, would like the same flexibility. She thought if the system was going to be changed, it ought to be changed for all teachers. She did not feel the contract prohibited flexibility; it was more the State Board of Education and the regulations.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 348 closed.

Mr. Dini explained he "came from the old school" because he attended grammar school 60 years ago and had some of the best teachers there ever were who had discipline in their classrooms. As time has progressed, in Nevada teachers had lost control and could not be the disciplinarians they ought to be. A.B. 521 would appropriate $1.8 million for the implementation of the alternate programs for education for disruptive students. Being able to move disruptive students from classrooms was a very high priority to teachers and the issue was critical to education reform in Nevada. He urged support for the bill and thought it would help the quality of education in the state. He believed it had been signed by most members of the Assembly.

Debbie Cahill, representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), expressed her extreme appreciation to Mr. Dini for sponsoring A.B. 521. When surveyed, 70 percent of NSEA members indicated being able to deal with and remove disruptive pupils from their classrooms was absolutely critical. As Mr. Dini indicated, teachers could no longer discipline students as had been done in the past. A.B. 521 was an effort to change the way students were disciplined by, first and foremost, giving teacher the authority to make the decision whether or not the student needed to be removed from the classroom.

Ms. Cahill thought 90 percent of students functioned well in the current structure of the classroom, but when there was one disruptive student in a classroom, education for the rest of the students came to a standstill. The legislature had already made an enormous investment in education reform, with things such as funding for the creation and implementation of standards, the development of student assessments, technology, professional development, and student remediation. At the district level, there were struggles with teacher recruitment, accountability for school, and increased learning opportunities for students, such as summer school. The bottom line was what took place in classrooms. Until an investment was made in dealing with disruptive students, all other investments were compromised. A.B. 521 required districts to establish programs of alternative education for students whose behavior had caused them to be removed from the classroom by their teacher, which meant all students from kindergarten through the 12^th grade. Most districts had some placement for upper grade students, but there were few alternative settings for younger students. In addition, A.B. 521 required the establishment of programs, but did not specify how the programs should be established at the district level. NSEA believed there were numerous ways for districts to deal with this, and not knowing how they might do it, an appropriation of $900,000 was requested for each year of the biennium. District representatives would say they needed ten times that amount, and other districts might claim it was not a fiscal concern because programs were already in place.

Ms. Cahill explained A.B. 521 required any district requesting funding from the state department, through the grant process in the bill, to include a written plan for how the program was intended to be implemented and identify the financial needs of the district. NSEA believed that process would help identify how much funding would be needed in the future, should more funding become necessary.

Elaine Lancaster, NSEA President, said A.B. 521 was not asking for a teacher to be able to remove 10 or 12 students. Rather, the bill asked for the ability to remove the one or two students who constantly disrupted their classrooms. Hopefully, if that was implemented in the early grades, there would not have to be expensive programs to remedy the situation in middle and high schools. The bill was not targeted at special education or conduct disorder students. If professionals were given the opportunity to create that type of program, there would be very inventive, creative programs. For example, a child would not be allowed to recess or lunch with other children, but would be moved to another classroom to do their school work. The child would know he or she could earn the right to be placed back in the regular classroom, and the child would do so because being removed from the classroom was not a fun situation for students, especially younger students. The child’s parents and the school counselor were involved in formulating a plan for the child to return to the classroom in a few days, or even a few hours, and function as a productive member of the classroom.

Ms. Lancaster recognized the program was expensive, but urged the committee to give professional staff members the opportunity to establish a program. More than 70 percent of NSEA members rated disruptive students as the number one impediment to doing their job.

Mrs. Cegavske said she had several concerns about A.B. 521 that unfortunately, she had not been able to have amendments address. Referring to Section 8, she said her biggest concern was that the decision to be made on the placement of a child did not allow for parental participation. Parents and teachers with whom she had spoken indicated there were already alternative programs in place and being used, though the programs needed work. In addition, there were a few teachers who needed disciplinary action, as well as the students.

Mr. Dini said if parents needed to be included, that was fine, but he thought sometimes parents were the problem. When he raised children in the 1960s in a small town and people moved in town from out of state, the first time the teacher disciplined their children, they threatened to beat up the teacher. For that reason, he had very little confidence in allowing parents into the decision-making process concerning the discipline of their child. The attitude imported into the state in the late 1960s and early 1970s was "I’m God and I’m coming into your state and I’m going to make it my way, not your way."

Vice Chair Evans noted Section 10 included a stipulation providing for parental contact. She was not sure if that addressed the concern, but did include parents. She asked if A.B. 521 was modeled after programs being used in other jurisdictions. Ms. Cahill replied the bill was taken almost directly from a Texas statute, called the Discipline Law and Order Bill. When it was passed it was originally considered a school safety bill, but the progressive discipline measures in place applied to kindergarten through 12^th grade. It gave teachers the authority to put the process in motion. Currently, students got into a "revolving door" situation, especially younger students. A second grade student who was sent out of the classroom very often went down to the office where something might happen, but came right back to the classroom. If the teacher had already had parental conferences and still had problems with the student, A.B. 521 would allow the teacher another course of action—an alternative setting for the student.

Vice Chair Evans said in the interim study on juvenile justice, it was found truancy, acting out in class, and bullying on the playground often escalated over time into situations where children rarely attended class and started breaking laws. She felt A.B. 521 was a good way to remedy that situation early on, instead of waiting until problem children got into the juvenile justice system. In addition, with the implementation of higher standards for Nevada’s students, A.B. 521 addressed the need for a learning environment for students in order for them to meet the new requirements.

Ms. Giunchigliani disclosed she was a public schoolteacher on a leave of absence. In the 1997 Legislative Session, habitual discipline problems were defined, but unfortunately, she was unaware of any districts that bothered to take advantage of that. Habitual discipline applied to very bad situations where children were being threatened. She appreciated the Assembly Committee on Education working with her on that and saw A.B. 521 as a preventative measure. She would share Mrs. Cegavske’s concerns, except because the bill provided for an intervention step, there were specific procedures teachers must follow under all circumstances regarding parental notification. It was often difficult to contact parents because schools sometimes had only two phone lines, which also made it difficult for parents to contact teachers. The way she read the bill, it would give teachers the authority to identify a student with constant disruptive behavior and move the student into a different setting in order to teach children who were paying attention. Teachers tended to focus too much time on the one or two disruptive students. No child had the right to take away the learning time from the rest of the classroom. For those reasons, she saw A.B. 521 as an empowerment tool to work with parents and students to come up with creative programs. For example, certain disruptive children were sent to her classroom and put in a "time out" corner, which worked well because students did not like being there, filling out the discipline packet, and writing a statement about their behavior. Often, the child only saw the end result, not what precipitated the removal, and that method forced a child to be responsible for his or her own behavior.

Ms. Giunchigliani acknowledged some teachers did not have good discipline skills, which was an administrative duty that had to be addressed if teachers were not able to control their classrooms. However, if a teacher did everything possible to control a disruptive child, the teacher had to be able to focus on instructional time, which is what A.B. 521 would help allow teachers to do.

Mrs. de Braga reiterated Mr. Dini’s concerns about parents often being part of the problem. She said her son was a school principal and had told her of a mother who had called to excuse her ill child from class, but it turned out the mother did not know where her child was and the child was in class. She asked how the program’s success would be measured.

In response to Ms. Giunchigliani, Ms. Cahill said if a teacher continually referred numerous students out of the classroom, the administration should know there was a problem and the problem may be the teacher. Steps should than be taken to address the situation. In response to Mrs. de Braga, success of the program could be measured by diminishing numbers of students who would be referred out of the classroom. If it was made clear to a young child that disruptive behavior would not be tolerated, there would hopefully be a smaller number of students who would be referred out of the classroom.

Mrs. Cegavske said, in response to Vice Chair Evans, Section 10 concerned what happened once a child was removed from the classroom. She was concerned with Section 8, which established a committee to determine the placement of a child, without involving parents. Section 10 required parental contact within 3 days after the child was removed from the classroom, which was a long time, but that did not address her concern that parents would not be involved in the placement of the child after removal from the classroom. Making a life decision for a young child, which was where the program was targeted, should involve the child’s parent.

Ms. Cahill said before the teacher would make a final referral for a child to be placed in an alternative setting, there would have already been meetings with the child’s parents. An amendment had been offered by the Washoe County Education Administrator Association which would clarify that before a teacher could remove a student from the classroom, there would be progressive steps in the classroom. Most districts already had those progressive discipline policies in place. Once the referral to remove the student was made, the parents were brought in for a conference. She thought 90 percent of the problems would be resolved during the conference and the student would be returned to the classroom. But when a teacher was still not satisfied, A.B. 521 would allow the child to be removed and placed into an alternative setting. The committee would then deliberate and decide where to place the child. NSEA thought it would be appropriate to have the child’s parents present during the committee’s deliberations and NSEA would be happy to specify that in the bill’s language. NSEA thought the committee’s purpose was only to review the process that had happened up to that point. The committee could overrule the teacher and return the child to the classroom, but if the committee concurred with the teacher, the child would be placed in an alternative setting.

Mr. Hettrick said he did not have the amendment to which Ms. Cahill referred and noted Section 9, Subsection 4 stated the child must not be returned to the classroom without the consent of the teacher. Ms. Cahill said the amendments were planned to be introduced in the Senate, should the bill be passed out of the Assembly. Mr. Hettrick said it might help pass the bill out of the Assembly if it had the amendments.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she thought part of A.B. 521 could be misinterpreted. Not all students were placed in an "alternative program" once they were removed from a classroom. Students could be placed in another classroom because there may be just a personality conflict between the teacher and the student. She thought the bill intended to avoid suspending children with behavior problems from school and putting them out on the street. Most kids, especially older ones, liked being suspended from school because there was no supervision at home. Many school districts had used an in-house suspension, which was also included in the bill. She did not think the bill removed the parent from the situation, but at some point, it placed responsibility on the parent to make sure their child behaved appropriately in school. There were only so many corrective steps that could be taken before a child lost the privilege to remain in the classroom.

Martha Tittle, representing the Clark County School District, said the district had expressed concerns with other sections of A.B. 521, but was present to speak against the bill’s enormous fiscal note, which the district felt it would have a difficult time handling. While the bill did not provide detail as to how its various requirements must be implemented, it required the districts to carry out functions directly tied to increased funding. The bill requested $1.8 million over the biennium for all schools in Nevada. Clark County estimated it would be closer to $9,674,688 per year, for just Clark County, and that was just for teachers’ salaries. The initial estimates would mean that the district would have to have a minimum of one additional teacher in 192 schools.

Ms. Tittle explained Clark County’s estimate did not even take space requirements into consideration. Those costs would be very high and in some cases, almost impossible to provide. For those reasons, she asked that the committee request more detail as to the specific requirements of the bill from the sponsor so all districts could provide an exact cost for the fiscal impact. She expressed concern that passage of the bill in its present form would place fiscal burdens on districts beyond their ability to meet the requirements of the bill.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she had heard it said the way to kill a bill was to attach a fiscal note and suspected that was what was happening. There was nothing in the bill requiring the hiring of more teachers. She thought the bill’s intent was to encourage flexibility in establishing programs within the current system. She stated she took offense to Clark County’s position. Further, if the districts were doing what they were supposed to be empowered to do in the first place, there probably wouldn’t even be a need for A.B. 521.

Mrs. Cegavske asked Ms. Tittle to explain Clark County’s current discipline procedure for kindergarten through fifth grade. Ms. Tittle replied Clark County had implemented a new program in the elementary education division titled the Area Educational Improvement Center Program. The program could serve a very limited number of students (45 district-wide) that went through a referral process. The students went to a separate site based on referral of a committee and the administrator, in concurrence with the parents. Within schools, there were site-based discipline programs determined with the parents, students, and teachers. The only alternative program was the new program, which was being used effectively. Students went there for a short period of time and were returned to their school, but for the most part, discipline was handled in schools.

Mrs. Cegavske asked if there were counselors at the elementary school level. Ms. Tittle replied Clark County had school counselors at every elementary school. Some schools had one counselor and others shared counselor assignments, depending on the student enrollment. Mrs. Cegavske asked whether teachers were taught behavior management to learn how to handle disruptive students and whether parents and students were taught behavior management. Ms. Tittle replied the Clark County School District’s counseling program included student behavior intervention components, working with teachers, parents, and students.

Henry Etchemendy, representing the Nevada Association of School Boards, said some school districts had problems with the content of A.B. 521. However, no district representatives had been able to attend the bill’s prior hearings, but would be testifying before the Senate, should the bill pass. He explained most districts did not have alternative programs in place, which would be necessary to fully comply with the bill. He did not know whether the funding in the fiscal note would be adequate, but it would help districts without alternative programs. He did not know whether the $9.6 million Clark County said it would need was adequate, but had to rely on the estimate because Clark County thought it was accurate. Using the estimate, the rest of the state would need about half that amount, since Clark County had two-thirds of the enrollment. Therefore, the $1.8 million provided for in the bill may not be enough.

Mr. Perkins asked what percentage of students in Nevada’s schools had disciplinary problems. Mr. Etchemendy said he did not have that information, but noted Ms. Cahill had stated 90 to 95 percent of students did not have behavioral problems and said he would provide that information to Mr. Perkins. Mr. Perkins said no students would be added to the school districts, they would simply be relocated, so he failed to see how there would be a great financial impact.

Doug Byington, representing the Nevada Association of School Administration (NASA), explained NASA was responsible for enforcing discipline and agreed discipline was a problem in schools. He said NASA proposed several amendments to A.B. 521. It had been suggested to NASA two weeks prior that the portion concerning high schools might be amended out, but was not previously amended out. Therefore, NASA recommended deleting any section pertaining to high schools. In Section 9, Lines 36 through 42, NASA suggesting adding that a teacher may remove from the classroom a pupil who engages in unruly, disruptive, or abusive behavior, pursuant to Subsection 2, only if the teacher has, prior to the removal, submitted a complete written report of student/teacher conferences to discuss the behavior; submitted the dates and a written report of the number of parent/teacher conferences held regarding the student’s behavior; and held a conference with the parent and principal. Following the first conference with the parent and the principal, there ought to be time allowed for the student to improve. In addition NASA recommended the committee be selected by the principal, not a majority of the teachers employed at the school. Finally, NASA recommended amending Subsection 2, Page 5, Line 7 to read "continue for not more than 10 school days."

Mr. Byington said after the day’s discussion regarding Section 8 and Section 10, NASA suggested including in the bill that a counselor be a member of the committees. In response, to Mr. Perkins’ comments, the bill stated one student could be removed from the classroom. Therefore, there had to be someplace to put the student and someone to supervise the student.

Mrs. Chowning asked why NASA felt A.B. 521 should not apply to high schools. Mr. Byington replied Clark County had an extensive alternative education program, as did Washoe County. Mrs. Chowning said she thought it was a good idea to have parents participate in the process, but in many cases, parents were not interested or too burdened. She thought the bill’s strict wording needed to be addressed, because there were cases where parents refused to be a part of their child’s discipline.

Mr. Byington agreed there were parents who refused to be involved, and thought teachers would be better off when they documented their attempts to contact parents, as stipulated in the bill. Teachers would have definitive proof if a parent refused to participate, because it would be documented. Mrs. Chowning noted the bill required teachers to submit a complete written report of student/teacher and parent/teacher conferences, so the bill needed to be worded to allow for the possibility that parents may refuse to be involved.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Byington if his testimony stated districts did not have in place procedures for documenting parental conferences. Mr. Byington said he did not know about all counties, but Nye County had a good discipline program and Washoe County had attempted several programs over the years. When he had been in the district, assertive discipline by candor had been used and everyone had to have a discipline plan, but not all teachers complied. Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Byington if he was stating school districts had referral forms documenting parental contact and disciplinary action that had been taken. Mr. Byington replied Washoe County used referral forms when students were sent to the office for discipline problems, but he did not know about other counties. Ms. Giunchigliani said it might be helpful to have that information and thought every county had a documentation process and hoped Mr. Byington was not stating the process was not taking place. In addition, districts had created parental phone logs to document parental contact and asked if he thought that would fill the bill’s requirement for written documentation. Mr. Byington replied yes, anything that would show the teacher had taken necessary steps to contact a parent would suffice.

Ms. Giunchigliani said in addition to parents who did not want to be involved, it was often difficult to contact parents because not all parents had a phone, and 50 percent of those who did, did not have the right phone number in their child’s records. She requested that the bill provide for attempted contact. She asked if the districts envisioned buying bus passes for parents who did not have transportation to get to conferences. Some districts sent aides or truant officers to pick up parents without transportation. She clarified the opportunity school was an alternative program with a limited number of spaces. She had not yet decided whether high schools should be removed from the bill, but thought the program was for children with severe behavior problems, while A.B. 521 was for students who were consistently disruptive.

Lonnie Shields, representing the Washoe County Education Administrator Association, explained he had worked with NASA on proposed amendments to A.B. 521 and would discuss the concerns of some Washoe County principals. First, the principals had indicated a strong desire to have parents involved in the discipline process from the beginning. The documenting processes were in place in Washoe County and would be used and accepted as documentation, as required in the bill. He admitted some teachers would try to use the bill to remove a student from the classroom very quickly without going through the process required in the bill.

Mr. Shields explained one of the reasons Washoe County recommended removing sections of the bill pertaining to high school students was because the money would not be enough to carry out the program in its entirety. If the bill was passed, the district wanted it to be a successful endeavor. The bill was a preventive measure and the children most able to be helped the quickest were in kindergarten through eighth grades. If the committee decided not to take high schools out of the bill, it might want to review Page 6, Lines 42 and 43, which stated the principal of a school shall establish a plan to ensure the pupil graduates from high school. There was no way to ensure that, so the principals recommended changing that wording.

Mr. Perkins said he had worked on A.B. 521, which was modeled after legislation in Texas and was working quite well there. He said he had difficulties removing the high school portion of the bill because in his professional capacity he often dealt with high school students. It was high school students who had attitude problems, not elementary school students. He was particularly concerned about amending Section 9, because if everything listed had to be done before a student could be moved out of a classroom, and given that there were varying degrees of behavior problems, the teachers would feel there were too many rules to follow before a disruptive student could be moved. He reemphasized students were not being added to the school system, only being relocated due to disruptive behavior. He thought in the long run, all money spent on accountability, standards, and remediation was due to classroom disruptions, in large part. He noted children did not act in the same manner as when he had been in school, and if the situation was not remedied, there would be greater costs in the future.

Mr. Shields agreed most high school students had attitude problems. He clarified his position was not that high schools did not need interventions and programs that could be established by A.B. 521, he just did not feel the bill provided enough money to effectively implement programs statewide at the high school level. He noted the bill would not prohibit teachers from sending a disruptive student to the principal’s office. Rather, the amendments would help in the removal of students who repeatedly disrupted classrooms. The bill would allow for the removal of those students for a minimum of 3 days, the review of the situation by a committee, and the final parent/teacher conference before the student was placed in an alternative program.

Chris Jensen, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC), stated NCC supported A.B. 14, which addressed habitual discipline problems because disruptive students hindered other students’ education. However, NCC was concerned with many aspects of A.B. 521. First, Section 8 stated the principal at each school shall establish a committee. Being a parent and having attended many conferences around the country, she had found that parental involvement was the most important indicator of student success. Parents needed to be on the committee to add another viewpoint that teachers may not see. Also, parents could offer creative alternative solutions that may not be as costly as other programs.

Ms. Jensen was also concerned about Section 10, which stated the teacher would notify the principal of the school immediately where students would be placed. She thought parents should be notified immediately as well. In addition, she was concerned about the teacher having sole determination as to what constituted unruly and disruptive behavior. Further, she was concerned about the bill’s financial impact, which the committee had heard could range from $900,000 to $9 million. The cost was unknown. The committee had heard the disruptive students would be moved to another classroom but it had not been stated where that classroom would be. She wanted to know whether the students would be placed in one classroom with one teacher, which would be a reduction situation capped at 10 students. It needed to be determined what the true cost would be and whether the programs would require new classrooms and new teachers.

Ms. Jensen said there was a movement to increase the standards and expectations of children, but she was concerned about further absolving teachers. She referred to A.B. 334, which concerned teacher evaluations, and Chairman Arberry said she could only comment on A.B. 521.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 521 closed.

Vice Chair Evans read from a prepared statement:

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what type of authority the committee established in the bill would have based on the Economic Forum. She asked if the committee would be able to work with the Economic Forum and be able to argue the legislature’s point of view, regarding whose numbers were more accurate. Vice Chair Evans said she thought the committee and the Economic Forum would complement each other. The Economic Forum did a 2 year projection, but the committee would go beyond that. The office would follow the work of the Economic Forum, but as the office became established, it would make contributions to the Economic Forum, regarding economic trends. One would not eliminate the work of the other, but would work in conjunction.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she assumed that was the intention and asked whether the Economic Forum’s charges to accept or work with the office would need to be changed. She asked if the office was charged solely with projecting revenues for gaming and sales taxes, for example, rather than looking at long-term projections, would that statute also need to be changed. Vice Chair Evans replied that could be done, but the information provided to the Economic Forum came from several sources, including the Budget Office and the Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Since the new office would be part of the Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, she thought the new office would take part in the Fiscal Analysis Division’s contributions to the Economic Forum. However, if clarification was needed, it could certainly be added to the bill.

Al Bellister, representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated NSEA supported A.B. 525. The lack of an adequate and reliable revenue source coupled with the lack of long-term financial planning fell unfairly on the shoulders of public employees, including public school employees. He noted The Executive Budget, for the second time in the 1990s, proposed no salary increases for public school employees. Hopefully the new office would help identify the size of the structural deficit, if nothing else, and help plan for proper revenue sources that would support expenditure needs into the next millenium.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the program had been rescheduled with Mr. Hovey. Mr. Bellister replied Mr. Hovey had recently had surgery and there had been a setback in his recovery so he would not be available until mid-July, 1999.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Arberry declared the hearing on A.B. 525 closed. He stated the committee would be voting on bills.

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst, explained A.B. 321 was the one-shot appropriation for data processing services within the Legislative Counsel Bureau. The amount was included in The Executive Budget.

Mr. Stevens explained the total cost of A.B. 344 was $12,000 and was included in The Executive Budget. Testimony indicated that the amount needed to be increased to $13,764. Fiscal staff had reviewed the amended projection of need in the account and agreed the increase was needed.

Mr. Stevens explained A.B. 371 had been heard by the committee several weeks ago and had passed out of the Ways and Means Committee in the 1997 Legislative Session. The bill had a $12,000 to $16,000 fiscal note, which he thought was speculative. The bill provided that the arbitrator shall assess his cost to the losing party, which may or may not be the state. Any cost related to the bill could be handled within the Department of Personnel’s budget.

Mr. Stevens explained the committee had heard A.B. 489 the previous week and said the agency could absorb the bill’s fiscal impact. Chairman Arberry noted the agency already had the money.

Mr. Stevens explained there was a transfer from the examination account to the administrative account. There were insufficient funds to make the complete transfer from the examination account, which was the reason for the supplemental appropriation. The agency had indicated the amount needed to be increased to $171,070. Fiscal staff had thoroughly reviewed the figures and agreed that amount should be included in A.B. 656.

Chairman Arberry said A.B. 657 would be held.

Mr. Stevens explained the agency requested a slight adjustment of an additional $1,400.

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 10:50 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Christina Alfonso,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE: